Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Mahavir Singh, & Shri Ashwani Taneja
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Ashwani Taneja (Accountant Member): This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Mumbai-I (in short ‘CIT(A)’}, dated 12.09.2014 passed order against u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 28.03.2013 for Assessment Year 2010- 11 on the following Grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Id. C1T(A)-I, Thane has not appreciated the fact that the assessee could not file any evidence in support of distribution of money and therefore the 2 Nur Islam S.Khan source of cash deposits remains unexplained.
2. The appellant prays the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Thane, may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.
3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any ground/grounds, which may be necessary.
During the course of hearing, arguments were made by Shri Sanjay R. Parikh, Authorised Representatives (AR) on behalf of the Assessee and by Shri T.A Khan, Departmental Representative (CIT-DR) on behalf of the Revenue.
The only effective ground raised in this appeal by the Revenue is with regard to addition deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) which was made by the AO on account of cash deposited by the assessee in its bank account which remained unexplained as per views of the AO. 3.1. The brief facts in this regard are that during the course of Assessment proceedings, it was noted by the AO that the assessee had made deposit of cash in its bank accounts at various occasions aggregating to Rs.64,51,000/- which remained unexplained and unsubstantiated by the assessee. 3.2. In the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), though he principally agreed with the version of the AO that the cash deposited was unexplained and unsubstantiated, but he recomputed the amount of addition by restricting the addition to the amount of peak credit. 3.3. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal, whereas the assessee accepted the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). 3.4. During the course of hearing before us, it was submitted by the Ld. DR that no pleading of addition on the basis of peak 3 Nur Islam S.Khan credit was ever raised by the assessee before the AO. It was raised for the first time before the Ld. CIT(A) who accepted the submissions of the assessee without giving any basis of working out the peak credit in the appeal order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Further, Ld. CIT(A) did not confront the working of peak credit to the AO and thus views of the AO were not obtained with regard to the fresh pleading taken by the assessee for the first time before the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, this matter should be sent back to the file of the AO. 3.5. Per contra, Ld. Counsel of the assessee vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and drew our attention on various evidences filed in the paper book and requested for upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A). 3.6. We have gone through the order passed by the lower authorities as well as submissions made by both the sides before us. It is noted that the pleading with regard the addition of peak credit was made by the assessee for the first time before the Ld. CIT(A). But he has not given in the appeal order any basis of computation with regard to working out computation of peak credit. Further, the submissions and evidences with regard to addition on the basis of peak credit were neither forwarded to AO by Ld. CIT(A) nor the views of AO were considered on this aspect. Even during the course of hearing before us, nothing was shown with regard to basis of computation of peak credit. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, we find that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)
4 Nur Islam S.Khan is in violation of principles of natural justice and without the support of any material. Thus, we find force in the submissions made by the Ld. DR and find it appropriate to send this issue back to the file of the AO. The assessee shall submit requisite details and evidences before the AO to show the basis of computing peak credit. The AO shall give adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and shall pass fresh order after considering entire material as may be placed on record by the assessee. Thus, with these directions the issues raised by the department in its appeal are sent back to the file of the AO.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order was pronounced in the open court at the conclusion of the hearing.